Sir, – I wish to refer to the recent controversy over the burial of my brother-in-law, Tom Alcock.

I believe the behaviour of certain members of Great Ayton Parish Council is nothing short of a disgrace.

Councillors are required to treat others with respect and, further, must conduct themselves in a manner so as not bring their office or authority into disrepute.

I would suggest that the attitude of certain councillors towards Tom’s widow and family, grieving at the sad loss of a loved one, left much to be desired. I name no names, they know who they are.

I also venture to suggest that had the local Press not been involved, the parish council would not have allowed Tom to be buried in GreatAyton.

I understand that the council is the custodian of the cemetery and has the legal right to say who, where and when anybody can or cannot be buried there.

Whether it has the moral right is another matter.

Canon Paul Peverell has summed up the situation very well in his recent article in the church magazine and asks “where do the residents of Easby go now to bury their dead”. All three local clergy are in agreement that residents of Easby should be allowed to have their final resting place in Great Ayton.

Easby has been associated with Great Ayton for as long as people can remember. It’s in the ecclesiastical parish, also the postal area is Easby, Great Ayton, but not it is not in the civil parish..

The few residents remaining in Easby, have been good enough to spend their hardearned cash in the shops and business’s and supported the various functions in Great Ayton; now it appears they are not good enough to be buried there.

I urge the parish council to ask the people of Great Ayton for their opinion on this matter, after all it is these it represents.

I would ask the members of the council to re-think this policy, and to use one word which seems to be sadly lacking in their policy – compassion. Ask Canon Paul to explain the meaning of the word.

BERNARD K BUNN Watton, Norfolk.